Some thoughts...

[desertfox04]

Ever wonder what Iraq would be like had we not invaded it? Here are some of my thoughts...

Saddam's political prisons would have never been emptied. There was no excuse for what a few of our soldiers did in Abu Ghraib. But I'd take the naked human pyramid over Sadaam's acid drip room anyday.

Saddam would have continued his policy of giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. That's right, all you had to do was strap on some explosives, blow up some women and children at a bus stop and your family would get a check from Sadaam.

Let's not forget the continued use of sanctions as a failed policy of keeping Saddam in line. The U.N. sanctions were believed to have resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children's deaths.

If we were to have ignored Sadaam it is almost certain that he would of put his WMD program back in full swing. There is no questioning Saddams preference in using WMD's in the past. Just about every book on the Persian gulf war, they all contain the pictures of 1988 poison gas attack on the kurds which were believed to have killed a minimum of 50,000 non-combatants. Let's not forget the Iran-Iraq war where Saddam first discovered the effectiveness of poison gas against Iran's human wave attacks. Even the most ardent opponent to the Iraq war must admit that Saddam had a serious history of building and using WMD's.

While Iraq still continues to be a sucky place to live it's alot better off than while under Saddam's rule. I could document Saddam's human rights abuses but I do not have the time nor space to do so. So I will direct you to the following links.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Torture-and-murder-in-Iraq
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraq/

Imagine if Saddam were to have died or been overthrown and the U.S. or some other peace keeping force was not there to stand between the ethnic groups. Best case scenario would be that Uday, a psychopath that was much more cruel than his father, would have taken over and life in Iraq would have gotten only moderatly worse. Although the most likely scenario would be that all the ethnic groups would have jumped at the oppurtunity and would start a civil war that would dwarf the current uprising and result in a death toll that, if the civil war were left unchecked, would most likely climb into the hundred's of thousands.

So in summary, compare the number of accidental civilian deaths to the number of people that would have died under the sanction program, the number of people that would have died due to political persecution and the number that would have died in an Iraqi civil war.

I think you'll find that President Bush's war actually saved quite a few Iraqi lives in the long run.

 

[Darkhawk28]

You know, why do Republicans feel that if you were against the war, you were pro-Saddam?

The real issue with the anti-war folks is the lie that got us there. If the act of freeing Iraq was so noble, why use the WMD ploy, eh? The U.S., as seen now, NEEDS international support. They NEED the UN to help with the stabilization. Any argument otherwise is just blind obedience. Senator Kerry thought that invading Iraq was the right thing to do (based upon intelligence testified by the Bush Administration), provided that all legal avenues had been exhausted. The UN would've supported the ousting of Saddam, it was just a matter of time. Now, we're isolated and have alienated most of the rest of the world. Would Saddam have been ousted? Yes, in due time and under the RIGHT circumstances. Circumstances that ALL Americans would've supported, not paper-thin veils of deceit.

 

[Pepsei]

Right, if he said from the beginning, that we're there to remove Saddam just because he's a very bad man. And oil is just a bonus. There wouldn't be this silly talk about WMD.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
You know, why do Republicans feel that if you were against the war, you were pro-Saddam?

The real issue with the anti-war folks is the lie that got us there. If the act of freeing Iraq was so noble, why use the WMD ploy, eh? The U.S., as seen now, NEEDS international support. They NEED the UN to help with the stabilization. Any argument otherwise is just blind obedience. Senator Kerry thought that invading Iraq was the right thing to do (based upon intelligence testified by the Bush Administration), provided that all legal avenues had been exhausted. The UN would've supported the ousting of Saddam, it was just a matter of time. Now, we're isolated and have alienated most of the rest of the world. Would Saddam have been ousted? Yes, in due time and under the RIGHT circumstances. Circumstances that ALL Americans would've supported, not paper-thin veils of deceit.

there is that lie word again. how is it a lie if you acted on wrong info? If britain, russian, and USA intelligence came up to me and all said they got WMD's, i sure as hell would be inclined to believe it.


question:

if i buy a new car and the dealer tells me its a 6 cylinder so i tell my buddies i got a 6 cylinder engine, but when i go to change the oil i find out its only a 4 cylinder, am i a liar?

 

[Todd33]

Iraq should handle Iraqi problems. Not with my money and not with my soldiers. I know they have lots of oil and we need bases in the middle east, but come on. There are two-bit dictators all over the world, we need to secure our nation before policing others. If you want to help in humanitarian efforts, then pressure Congress to lean on the UN. We are not the worlds police, sorry.

I'm not buying the fact that Republican want to help Iraqis. It's an excuse, they have no love for Muslim arabs. As soon as they do anything to cross us, we call them terrorist. I'm not buying, it's just another excuse like the others. If we had a popular vote on helping Iraqi people by invading Iraq with our troops for purely humanitarian reason back in 2000, it would get like 6% if that.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
You know, why do Republicans feel that if you were against the war, you were pro-Saddam?

The real issue with the anti-war folks is the lie that got us there. If the act of freeing Iraq was so noble, why use the WMD ploy, eh? The U.S., as seen now, NEEDS international support. They NEED the UN to help with the stabilization. Any argument otherwise is just blind obedience. Senator Kerry thought that invading Iraq was the right thing to do (based upon intelligence testified by the Bush Administration), provided that all legal avenues had been exhausted. The UN would've supported the ousting of Saddam, it was just a matter of time. Now, we're isolated and have alienated most of the rest of the world. Would Saddam have been ousted? Yes, in due time and under the RIGHT circumstances. Circumstances that ALL Americans would've supported, not paper-thin veils of deceit.

there is that lie word again. how is it a lie if you acted on wrong info? If britain, russian, and USA intelligence came up to me and all said they got WMD's, i sure as hell would be inclined to believe it.


question:

if i buy a new car and the dealer tells me its a 6 cylinder so i tell my buddies i got a 6 cylinder engine, but when i go to change the oil i find out its only a 4 cylinder, am i a liar?

Ok, way to discredit the entire post because of one word. Ok, as of right now, it's not a LIE, per se. But I'm sure in time, the "alleged" lie will be exposed.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Sure, Iraqis are probably better off in the long run, but the short run is going to be and was painful. I don't think the US really should have involved itself, but I guess they thought that it was in their best interests to do so. Combine that with getting rid of a dictator, then it could potentially be very good. However, the process of doing it was not, IMO.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
You know, why do Republicans feel that if you were against the war, you were pro-Saddam?

The real issue with the anti-war folks is the lie that got us there. If the act of freeing Iraq was so noble, why use the WMD ploy, eh? The U.S., as seen now, NEEDS international support. They NEED the UN to help with the stabilization. Any argument otherwise is just blind obedience. Senator Kerry thought that invading Iraq was the right thing to do (based upon intelligence testified by the Bush Administration), provided that all legal avenues had been exhausted. The UN would've supported the ousting of Saddam, it was just a matter of time. Now, we're isolated and have alienated most of the rest of the world. Would Saddam have been ousted? Yes, in due time and under the RIGHT circumstances. Circumstances that ALL Americans would've supported, not paper-thin veils of deceit.

there is that lie word again. how is it a lie if you acted on wrong info? If britain, russian, and USA intelligence came up to me and all said they got WMD's, i sure as hell would be inclined to believe it.


question:

if i buy a new car and the dealer tells me its a 6 cylinder so i tell my buddies i got a 6 cylinder engine, but when i go to change the oil i find out its only a 4 cylinder, am i a liar?

I have to agree with you. Many people on this forum are saying that Bush lied. I've even asked for proof of this and someone told me that it was all over the news. I couldn't find anything at all about indisputable proof that Bush lied.

Is it possible that he lied? Yes. Do I think he lied? I'm not really sure, but I'm not going to say that he lied without any concrete proof of it.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Read my earlier response please. I took back the word lie. Now address the real core of my argument please.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Read my earlier response please. I took back the word lie. Now address the real core of my argument please.

My post was not only directed at you. Not much to address concerning your argument except that I largely agree with it.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Ok then.

 

[Zephyr106]

Well I guess we'd better get ready to invade N. Korea and also Sudan. You know thousands are dying in Sudan, all the fault of Muslims, and millions have starved under the Kims in Korea. Don't forget all those oppressed women in Saudi Arabia, and let's invade France for good measure, I heard that there was some anti-Semitism there and we can't have that.

Zephyr

 

[Rainsford]

You know what's wrong with this type of argument? There is lots of injustice in the world...is it our job to fix it? Yeah, just like you (I assume) I would like to fix all the problems in the world...but you know what, I don't think that's such a good policy to have. The problems of the world are just too big to fix through force of arms. Look at the problems we are having dealing with just one country, a relativly minor one at that. Do you honestly think we can pull this off with countries that aren't as pathetic as Iraq?

I am far from opposed to the concept of humans rights and freedom...that doesn't mean I think we can or should use our military to enforce those beliefs all over the world. I don't understand why some people can't see that distinction.

 

[nageov3t]

the big problem for me is that our leaders misrepresented the truth to make Iraq seem like more of an immediate threat than they were.

we should have taken the time to build a real international invasion force, develop a strategy for post-war rebuilding, and perhaps even waited until things were settled down in Afghanistan before the invasion began.

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: desertfox04
Ever wonder what Iraq would be like had we not invaded it? Here are some of my thoughts...

Saddam's political prisons would have never been emptied. There was no excuse for what a few of our soldiers did in Abu Ghraib. But I'd take the naked human pyramid over Sadaam's acid drip room anyday.

Saddam would have continued his policy of giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. That's right, all you had to do was strap on some explosives, blow up some women and children at a bus stop and your family would get a check from Sadaam.

Let's not forget the continued use of sanctions as a failed policy of keeping Saddam in line. The U.N. sanctions were believed to have resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children's deaths.

If we were to have ignored Sadaam it is almost certain that he would of put his WMD program back in full swing. There is no questioning Saddams preference in using WMD's in the past. Just about every book on the Persian gulf war, they all contain the pictures of 1988 poison gas attack on the kurds which were believed to have killed a minimum of 50,000 non-combatants. Let's not forget the Iran-Iraq war where Saddam first discovered the effectiveness of poison gas against Iran's human wave attacks. Even the most ardent opponent to the Iraq war must admit that Saddam had a serious history of building and using WMD's.

While Iraq still continues to be a sucky place to live it's alot better off than while under Saddam's rule. I could document Saddam's human rights abuses but I do not have the time nor space to do so. So I will direct you to the following links.

Imagine if Saddam were to have died or been overthrown and the U.S. or some other peace keeping force was not there to stand between the ethnic groups. Best case scenario would be that Uday, a psychopath that was much more cruel than his father, would have taken over and life in Iraq would have gotten only moderatly worse. Although the most likely scenario would be that all the ethnic groups would have jumped at the oppurtunity and would start a civil war that would dwarf the current uprising and result in a death toll that, if the civil war were left unchecked, would most likely climb into the hundred's of thousands.

So in summary, compare the number of accidental civilian deaths to the number of people that would have died under the sanction program, the number of people that would have died due to political persecution and the number that would have died in an Iraqi civil war.

I think you'll find that President Bush's war actually saved quite a few Iraqi lives in the long run.

I find your argument for invading Iraq to be over-simplified, after the fact, and full of assumption (not necessary false, but doesn't mean it's true either, just unproven).
Let's debunk several of your point.
1. Saving many of Iraqis political prisoners live and many civillian lives under Saddam. The better question to ask is, would you support president decision (prior to the war) to invade Iraq, if he has said we are going in there because under Saddam regime, thousands of Iraqis were imprisoned, tortured or murdered daily? There are many other regimes that did what Saddam did, just less publicity here, and if US needed them, you wouldn't hear a beep about their abuse.
2. Saddam continued giving money to support suicide bombers in Palestine-Israel conflict. That one is also too easy to debunk. The fact that money from Saddam now have stopped flowing, does that stop anybody from doing suicide jihad in Israel? Nope. The suicide bombers have made up their mind long before money from Saddam came into equation, Saddam's money encourage and inflame the situation, but doesnot play a big parts. The more apt questions are why the suicide bombers would sacrifice themselves to kill innocent people. What is their purpose or goal? Why are they so desperate? How do we tackle this suicidal mind set? and more importantly, rather than blaming Saddam after fact, how do we solve this Israel-Palestine conflict for good.
3. UN policy actually worked in keeping Saddam in-line. The fact that we didn't find any WMD in Iraq and the fact that Iraqis army are so disorganized and ill-equiped testify to the success of UN policy to dis-arm Saddam after the Gulf War I. The fact that many Iraqis children are dying and malnutrist, seem to point to the fact of Saddam misgovernment, rather than failed UN policy. He diverted many of the money to his own pocket and his relatives. And further, prior to the war, there has been several discussion in UN among the security council to tighten the oil-for-food fund oversight and created a smarter sanction to ensure money flowing to the poor. Tantamount to taking over some of Iraqis govt function.
4. Your argument about who is going to be in charge in Iraq after Saddam without US present doesn't hold much water either, because if the current situation persist, Iraq might go down in civil war flame with US caught in the middle of it, or a strong man ala Saddam might appear, albeit pro US or rabidly anti-US, but one thing for sure (based on poll among Iraqis), our present there NOW seem to actually inflame the situation rather than helping calm the situation. Yet the irony is we can't get out quickly enough without endangering our national security now. Thank to Bush big huge mistake/miscalculation (and I am not talking about decision to invade Iraq, I am talking about what he has done in planning for Iraq post-Saddam), Islamic extremists with AQ ties, lead by Zarqawi now have a real stronghold in Iraq, while during Saddam era, they're either underground or being hunted by Saddam agents. If Iraq became nest of extremism, we are going to be in big trouble, because it could quickly spread to neighbours, ie especially Saudis.
Here's some of our mis-step in IRAQ post-Saddam:
We can proceed quickly enough with rebuilding due to persistent terror attack/kidnapping among the contractors, we can't train & equiped ING/army quickly enough to take over some of our soldier functions there, we have to build the ING from zero because we made the mistake of disbanding the old Iraqis army without making sure we have enough soldiers of our own to provide security inside the country, for CPA, UN, contractors, and ordinary Iraqis. We failed to secure many of Saddam military equipments/weapon depot and let them being looted and later used against us (that is also due to shortage of soldiers to secure a hostile country the size of California). We then made further blunder by miscalculating what to do in Falluja, Ramadi, Najaf, against the Sunnis rebels, and then against the majority Shi'ites, by attacking Al-Sadr without trying to co-opt him first. We flip-flop on the Falluja, sending wrong signal to the extremists, showing us as weak, yet at the same time inflame the feeling of many majority Iraqis. And of course Abu-Ghraib incident. Because of that incident, I have read that we were forced to release many prisoners in there, and some have real ties or are insurgents themselves, and many become more extreme in their anti-US fervor, because of that "little" incident.

Wheh... that was a long post. sorry.

 

[Runner20]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Well I guess we'd better get ready to invade N. Korea and also Sudan. You know thousands are dying in Sudan, all the fault of Muslims, and millions have starved under the Kims in Korea. Don't forget all those oppressed women in Saudi Arabia, and let's invade France for good measure, I heard that there was some anti-Semitism there and we can't have that.

Zephyr

None of those nations are a threat that Iraq WAS. N Korea can be somewhat controlled by China and S Korea.

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: Runner20

None of those nations are a threat that Iraq WAS. N Korea can be somewhat controlled by China and S Korea.

I doubt S. Korea can control the North, last time, they (&us) are almost overrun by the communist troops until our support troops arrived from Japan.
And I don't believe China is our allies? I bet they will do our every bidding regarding controlling N. Korea

Anyway, your argument is actually flawed. Zephyr is responding to the claim that invading Iraq in order to save their suffering population is a justified reason. By responding that Iraq was a threat, you're actually weakening the original argument from your side and actually turn the focus to a much more weaker position for your side to debate on. I hope I have enlightened you. Thank you.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: nick1985

if i buy a new car and the dealer tells me its a 6 cylinder so i tell my buddies i got a 6 cylinder engine, but when i go to change the oil i find out its only a 4 cylinder, am i a liar?

No just an Idiot who should have known better. So according to your analogy the Dub isn't a liar, just an idiot..Hmmm

 

[sandorski]

Spin spin spin. Bushites will be trying to Justify this war until their death, but there is no Justification for it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: desertfox04
Ever wonder what Iraq would be like had we not invaded it? Here are some of my thoughts...

Saddam's political prisons would have never been emptied. There was no excuse for what a few of our soldiers did in Abu Ghraib. But I'd take the naked human pyramid over Sadaam's acid drip room anyday.

Saddam would have continued his policy of giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. That's right, all you had to do was strap on some explosives, blow up some women and children at a bus stop and your family would get a check from Sadaam.

Let's not forget the continued use of sanctions as a failed policy of keeping Saddam in line. The U.N. sanctions were believed to have resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children's deaths.

If we were to have ignored Sadaam it is almost certain that he would of put his WMD program back in full swing. There is no questioning Saddams preference in using WMD's in the past. Just about every book on the Persian gulf war, they all contain the pictures of 1988 poison gas attack on the kurds which were believed to have killed a minimum of 50,000 non-combatants. Let's not forget the Iran-Iraq war where Saddam first discovered the effectiveness of poison gas against Iran's human wave attacks. Even the most ardent opponent to the Iraq war must admit that Saddam had a serious history of building and using WMD's.

While Iraq still continues to be a sucky place to live it's alot better off than while under Saddam's rule. I could document Saddam's human rights abuses but I do not have the time nor space to do so. So I will direct you to the following links.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Torture-and-murder-in-Iraq
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraq/

Imagine if Saddam were to have died or been overthrown and the U.S. or some other peace keeping force was not there to stand between the ethnic groups. Best case scenario would be that Uday, a psychopath that was much more cruel than his father, would have taken over and life in Iraq would have gotten only moderatly worse. Although the most likely scenario would be that all the ethnic groups would have jumped at the oppurtunity and would start a civil war that would dwarf the current uprising and result in a death toll that, if the civil war were left unchecked, would most likely climb into the hundred's of thousands.

So in summary, compare the number of accidental civilian deaths to the number of people that would have died under the sanction program, the number of people that would have died due to political persecution and the number that would have died in an Iraqi civil war.

I think you'll find that President Bush's war actually saved quite a few Iraqi lives in the long run.

Why didn't the Dub try to sell this war based on that argument? I'll tell you why, because most of the Amreicans wouldn't have supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq if it were just to "liberate" the Iraqi's from Hussien.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In effect you are saying that in retrospect, having this war turned out to be a good thing.

Well, in retrospect, I can turn Hitler and the Nazi party into a Good Thing too if I spin it enough.

We went in for a purpose that wasnt. It has been said that if a car salesman didnt know what he was selling it is ok. Well, if Bush were a car salesman he should have looked under the hood when some of the mechanics said there was a problem. He wouldn't do that because it would have wrecked the sale.

 

[arsbanned]

Not going in for reasons based on lies and innuendo would have meant pumping 100 billion into more useful things, IMO.
What's wrong with Republicans today that they want to blow money on "nation building"? It was my understanding that the majority of Republicans did not support nation building, before this war, anyway....

 

[desertfox04]

The point of my post was to debunk the liberals crys of "Think of the Iraqi children that Bush has killed!" and "Iraq was better off with Saddam."

Also, few liberals like to talk about Saddams well documented history of building and USING WMD's.

And for those of you complaining about the slow progress of democracy in Iraq. No one said that building a democracy was easy. Let's look at the history of the U.S. afer the revolutionary war. Inflation was making our currency next to worthless, the states refused to co-operate with each other, Shay's rebellion, and our federal government was impotent.

Creating a democracy is not easily, the United States must get the job done whatever challenges it faces.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: desertfox04
The point of my post was to debunk the liberals crys of "Think of the Iraqi children that Bush has killed!" and "Iraq was better off with Saddam."

Also, few liberals like to talk about Saddams well documented history of building and USING WMD's.

And for those of you complaining about the slow progress of democracy in Iraq. No one said that building a democracy was easy. Let's look at the history of the U.S. afer the revolutionary war. Inflation was making our currency next to worthless, the states refused to co-operate with each other, Shay's rebellion, and our federal government was impotent.

Creating a democracy is not easily, the United States must get the job done whatever challenges it faces.

Dude, did you even READ any of the posts in this thread?

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Dude, did you even READ any of the posts in this thread?

Bush supporter usually don't bother read the other side arguments, they just loves to hear their own voice since it's the voice of GOD and wanna everyone to nod in agreement. It's very sad but becoming truer and truer trend the closer we get to election.